Vatican Mafia man expected to be the new Archbishop of Glasgow

TARTAGLIA. Sounds like a tantalising pasta dish that would be nice with freshly shaved Parmesan and a green salad on the side.

Bishop Tartaglia is no fan of gay marriage

No. This Tartaglia is a very unappetising Catholic bigot, who, according to this report, is about to become the new Bishop of Glasgow, replacing Mario Conti, who is stepping aside after ten years leading Scotland’s most populous Catholic community.

The orthodox Bishop Philip Tartaglia, 61, is frequently described as “one of Benedict’s men” and will no doubt gleefully continue the Catholic Church’s war on gay marriage in Scotland.

To get the full measure of this rancid old tart, here are some extracts from his pastoral letter “to the clergy, religious and Faithful of the Diocese of Paisley”:

The Scottish Government has launched a consultation in which they propose that same sex marriage should be introduced in Scotland.

The Catholic Bishops of Scotland have expressed their unanimous opposition to this proposal. I have made public my own submission to the Scottish Government.

I have also given radio and television interviews in which I have defended the institution of marriage as uniquely the union of a man and a woman, and stressed the foolishness of the Government’s proposal to re-define marriage to accommodate same-sex unions.

It is very important to realise that opposition to the introduction of same sex marriage is not, as some so stridently assert, ‘homophobic bigotry,’ but is the assertion and defence of the nature and meaning of marriage which has been universally recognised by all cultures and all the great religions, and which has sustained humanity since time immemorial. It is therefore wrong and foolish to undermine this understanding of marriage.

There’s more … much more:

The State recognises same-sex unions in the form of civil partnerships. In law, same-sex partners have all the rights and privileges of marriage, except the right to be called a marriage. Same-sex ‘marriage’ is therefore unnecessary. Moreover, to call a civil partnership a marriage is to play a childish but dangerous game with language, in which people make something mean whatever they want it to mean.

Once the definition of marriage is changed to accommodate same sex unions on account of equality and human rights, Government will have no good reasons not to extend the definition of marriage to other combinations, such as three or more partner marriages. The problem will be that Government will not be able to give a principled answer to requests for polygamous marriage. It will not be able to say, ‘This is not allowed because it is not right’. It can only say, ‘This is not allowed because it’s not allowed’, and this is clearly unsatisfactory and ultimately unsustainable.

I think that quite enough to be getting on with.

UPDATE: Tartaglia, who appears to have more chins than a Chinese telephone directory, is definitely The Man. Another major change in the insane world of Roman Catholicism is that The Inquisition (now known as the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith), has a new Prefect – and the editor of Catholic Truth (motto: “Keeping the Faith – Telling the Truth”) is not happy with Ratzi choice of the German “liberal” Gerhard Ludwig Müller:

He grouches:

Who could ever have imagined that the prelate placed in the highest Vatican office … would be a notorious ‘liberal’ bishop who is on public record challenging key doctrines such as transubstantiation and the perpetual virginity of Our Lady.

Worse, this new head of the CDF:

Leans more towards atheism than traditionalism, and that’s putting it as charitably as I can muster.




43 responses to “Vatican Mafia man expected to be the new Archbishop of Glasgow”

  1. barriejohn says:

    The announcement has now been made.

    Bishop Philip Tartaglia = Appal: I list right phobia

    Tartaglia actually sounds like one of the crime bosses in The Godfather!

  2. Matt Westwood says:

    “Once the definition of marriage is changed to accommodate same sex unions on account of equality and human rights, Government will have no good reasons not to extend the definition of marriage to other combinations, such as three or more partner marriages.”

    Sorry, but is there a fundamental problem with this concept? Because I can’t find it …

  3. Stuart H. says:

    At the rate these chumps seem determined to dig bigger holes for their church, I wonder if ‘Gravedigger’ and ‘Senior Gravedigger’ would be better titles for them than ‘Priest’ and ‘Bishop’.
    At 61, this one will have just enough time to close down the Scottish office of the business before he retires.

  4. barriejohn says:

    Matt: Many people throughout the world, including Christians and also including Muslims in Great Britain, have multiple partners, and always have done. Typical of Roman Catholics to see everything through their own blinkered eyes. An alternative wouldn’t suggest itself to them, especially when their preferred arrangement is “what God has planned”.

    Stuart H: To join the Church of Wales!

  5. remigius says:



    Archbishop of Glasgow!


  6. barriejohn says:

    And the church in Poland, if this account is true:

  7. RabbitOnAStick says:

    “Government will have no good reasons not to extend the definition of marriage to other combinations, such as three or more partner marriages”


    This already exists. Its called Islam and it also applies to Mormon.

  8. barriejohn says:

    Wwwas anyone else wwwondering wwwhat TTTartaglia mmmeans?

    Commedia del’Arte – hahahahaha!!!

  9. Broga says:

    @barriejohn: I have just read your link about the problems in the Church of Wales and their proposals for reorganisation. But the core issue with them, and other religions, is not how to reorganise but the justification for belief, for faith, for “knowing” there is a god. While people remain blinkered and ill educated then this problem does not arise. When they become more educated and have access to books and the internet then the problem becomes overwhelming for them.

    However, the religions are between a rock and a hard place. How do they justify belief when it is based on ancient tribal lore which clearly imagines god as some kind of super human and with all the flaws and cruelties of a human? This restricts and constrains. Their problem is that belief just isn’t believable. And there is no way they can make their religion believable. So they are reduced to ignoring what is plainly before them, to relying on censorship and to preaching as if it were true when it clearly cannot be. Where they can get away with it, as in Muslim countries, they rely on blatant threats, including murder, to those who dare to express doubt.

    What the Church of Wales needs is a redefinition of belief that is believable. But this is a leap too far as it means ditching their imaginary god. So they continue in a pretend mode and that is eroding their faith by the day. If they want to believe, to find the numinous and a truly transcendant experience they will need to shape it from the awesome and mysterious cosmos. That, of course, leads straight to the views of the dreaded Dawkins.

  10. Adam says:

    What you don’t seem to realise that he’s one of the more liberal bishops and certainly not one of Benedict’s men.

  11. Stuart H. says:

    I have doubts about that Church of Wales story. It fits a pattern I’ve seen nearer home of Anglican PR merchants priming trusted media with sob stories which they’ll claim are meant to ‘spark debate about the role of the church in the 21st century’..or some such guff. In reality, they’re to soften the blow before the public learns that the church is about to be handed more public funds, disguised as ‘protecting heritage’ or to run ‘community facilities’. Cof E senior management have been working on this with politicos for around a decade now and there’s even a handy guide on the C of E website for vicars and PCCs to spot grant aid and business opportunities – e.g. opening a post office in the vestry when the village shop shuts.

  12. JohnMWhite says:

    In general I have zero faith in politicians, but if any party is going to be able to resist the bullying bigots in the Catholic Church, it’s the SNP. Nobody else would even try. Given their enormous and unprecedented remit from the Scottish people, and that they made plain this was on the agenda before the last election, I feel a consultation is not really necessary and is a matter of courtesy. Unfortunately, it seems only one side is really being heard right now, because as usual they’re screaming and stamping their feet because they feel their sense of privilege and right to discriminate being pulled away. I really hope the government don’t chicken out or try to come to some piecemeal compromise to assuage the fears of the likes of Tartaglia. The Catholic Church isn’t remotely interested in a consultation – they refuse to answer questions or respond to letters on the matter (I’ve tried, and I do know how to be polite to these vile entities, I grew up surrounded by them), they only demand media attention in order to pontificate.

    It’s not a consultation, or a democracy, when one side screams until they get their way. Bearing this in mind Tartaglia’s projection in calling the SNP government “childish” reaches obscene levels.

  13. Matt Westwood says:

    “Wwwas anyone else wwwondering wwwhat TTTartaglia mmmeans?”

    N-n-no, b-b-b-ecause it was also the n-n-name of a m-m-m-athematician from the r-r-r-r-ren-n-n-naiss-s-s-s-sance.

  14. Stonyground says:

    Can someone tell me where Tagliatelli gets this idea of marriage being between one man and one woman from? Is it just a modern social norm, or did he get it from studying the habits of Biblical characters? If I didn’t know better, I would start to think that he was just making stuff up as he goes along.

    It is quite amusing how much these people resemble Cnut, as the tide of the modern world washes away their little sandcastles. The difference of course is that Cnut knew that he could not hold back the tide and his attempt to do so was done to demonstrate that to his subjects.

  15. Lazy Susan says:

    Multiple partners – specifically one man and many women – may be fine for the individuals concerned but it creates problems at the societal level. What happens is that the one man who can afford many women tends to be old and rich and powerful, and the women tend to be young. This means that poor young men face a shortage of marriage partners. Carried to extremes this results in a surplus of frustrated angry young men who cannot see much of a future, and (since they are also not the brightest in the bunch) are ideal fodder for demagogues.

    Polygamy is just another example where individual rational decisions don’t work out for society – ie the tragedy of the commons.

  16. barriejohn says:

    Stonyground: That’s what I was trying to say. These so-called intelligent people are so ignorant that it beggars belief. Did you realize that Billy Graham actually gained his degree in ANTHROPOLOGY? Of course, that was at a Christian college, but what on earth did the course consist of?

    Q1 What were the names of the first two people whom God created?

    Q2 On which day of the week were they created?

    Q3 What were the names of Noah’s three sons from whom the entire human race is descended?

    As I said, there is, in their eyes, just one model, and any other pattern of human behaviour is an aberration, and not according to “God’s plan”; and, as JohnMWhite says, there is no point in entering dialogue with them as they are NEVER going to accept any world view other than their own.

  17. […] Vatican Mafia man expected to be the new Archbishop of Glasgow. Rate this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Uncategorized.Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment […]

  18. stargraves says:

    @StuartH – and everyone really – ‘Gravedigger’ and ‘senior gravedigger’ apt titles indeed.

    Phew! here goes:

    Fact is, they are campaigning against the right for lovers to publicly express their feelings for eachother in an equal society.

    Let’s look at their plight instead for a minute though – the fact that priests themselves are ONLY ever addressed by people close to them by obscure antiquated and arbitrary titles; bishop, archbishop, Monsignor, or whatever.

    Rather than how normal people talk to their close ones; my love, my darling, my dear, hello sweetie even!

    Just first names too in public (or our pet names we keep between ourselves) and also they don’t get addressed by terms that our children say to us; daddy, dad, mummy, mum, grandad, grandma, or even worzel… (long story) and they never get to say to their own children (cause they aren’t allowed them due to the church’s fear of inheritance rights which would erode their obscene mountains of accumulated wealth..) endearing phrases like cheeky chops, buggaluggs, monkey-boy, imp, nipster…

    They never, ever, get to say those colloquial terms that comprise the most immediate verbal expression of our endearment to our nearest and dearest…

    Why are they missing out? Because they choose to go through life without even getting near to natural, mutual, affections for others.

    The only time they get close to being called a term of familial closeness in the priesthood (at least legitimately!) is the somewhat stilted Victorian title of “Father.”

    The term itself a devious conceit – yet in context of their actual lives though; surely a sardonic comment on their barren, celibate existence. (Obviously if they stay true to their devotions of course – otherwise the term CHILD RAPIST springs to mind!)

    And they in turn call their followers derogatory, insulting, demeaning, herd-mentality slurs, such as sheep or flock, or worse, congregation.

    A word surely constructed from “Con” “Egregious” and “Nation”.

    I’m not really surprised that these hollow shells of bitter, deluded men, (and the fat fucks like this one) begrudge the joy of living and loving that the rest of us normal folks who are capable of expressing love and affection in everyday life to our partners, can all experience and enjoy.

    Yet it is their own stubborn obstinacy, clinging to their peculiarly chosen personal route to societal power and status, that is to blame.

    They always verbally squirm to justify their outlandish rules when challenges are posed from rational secular society; questioning their motives for such wanton oppression of others, and they retreat ino the dark ages every time.

    I’d pity them, but they don’t deserve it. The fact they are doing so much damage to humankind as a while – especially in the developing countries, where their ecumenical bigotry leads to actual murder – ensures I hold them in the justifiable contempt they invite.

    The bad far eclipses the good – as I see it – in humanitarian terms.

    Imagine how much more human a priest could be if, when they got home at night after a hard days bullshitting, someone hugged and kissed them, and they curled up together on the couch with a glass of wine and a spliff to unwind…

    They’d surely drop the bigoted hatred they spew, when they finally get to experience genuine human love and interaction, as opposed to the purely hypothetical bliss that they are holding out for that their crazy “heaven” idea can only promise to deliver, once they are dead and rotting in the grave.

    But sod them – they don’t deserve happiness – or the pledge of commitment and love that is real marriage – or the joy of having children. And they certainly don’t have the right to deny it for others who don’t share their mental illness.

    As long as they fight so hard against what it is to be human – without showing an iota of mercy or compassion; then fuck them.

    They claim “God” is love, or “Jesus” is love. But that is the biggest give-away that these clowns haven’t the faintest clue as to what love is.

    Love is what is expressed physically and emotionally, by people who are real and alive. It thrives in family environments, even in marriages involving christians too I daresay.

    Frankly, as well as bringing joy, in the real-world, love is actually a selfish emotion and also very destructive. But hey-ho; that’s nuance for you and just the haphazard reality of human life on Earth – rather than an impossible idealised myth-concept.

    But it’s also the one thing those nasty, twisted, bitter, old bigots in the Vatican will never experience. (at least in public.) And that kind of anti-human repression of natural emotions is just as unhealthy as them fighting tooth and gum to stop others from having equality…

    Sorry for the length of the rant – I got a bit emotional and carried away with it.

  19. stargraves says:

    And as ever – I wish for an edit function…

    “I’d pity them, but they don’t deserve it. The fact they are doing so much damage to humankind as a *while* (correction – whole)”


    “as opposed to the purely hypothetical bliss that they are holding out for *that* their crazy “heaven” idea can only promise to deliver, once they are dead and rotting in the grave.

    (correction -what)”

    Dunno if Barry Duke could come to my rescue here with my spelling!

    PS – I read it back and found it very sentimental – but only because I am married, a father, and loved by my extended family and see it as an abomination to deny equality to anyone else.

    Even before this – when I was sleeping around though – taking promiscuity into uncountable figures – I felt love and intimacy and rejoiced in being alive.

    The thought that someone without any experience of sexual loving and parenthood, or promiscuity even, (hey – I teach Kolb’s theories) would then be so vehement to deny others that right to publicly announce and commit their love through marriage – just gets my goat. And worse. Provokes me to verbosity!

  20. JohnMWhite says:

    It may have been verbose, but it was also astute. Well said, stargraves. How dare these people take it upon themselves to deny what joys can be drawn from the well of human existence from anyone.

  21. Robster says:

    Is the ponderous pope running a ring of male lovers? “One of Benedict’s men” is how this new catholic leader(?) is described. How many others has the hateful old twit got tucked away in the vatican? Is is a state or a gay sauna? If it’s the latter, it may be worth a visit, the costumes are at least entertaining.

  22. Bubblecar says:

    Perhaps the most obscenely hypocritical aspect of the current Catholic stance is that we’re told: “Gays don’t need marriage, they’re already looked after by Civil Partnerships” when of course the Church also ferociously opposed the introduction of Civil Partnerships, and is still opposed to them in any country where governments toy with the idea. The Catholics have opposed each and every crumb of gay rights legislation that has ever been introduced, but then when they’re defeated they hope the public quietly forgets their previous positions and will embrace the idea that “OK we’re in favour of gays being treated fairly, but this latest step is just going too far etc etc”. Utterly unprincipled, homophobic scum.

  23. barriejohn says:

    I just HAD to share this:

    Serial killers, government tyrants, academic liberals, Catholic priests, politicians, Mormon Church higher-ups, Jewish rabbis, environmental extremists, communists, religious heretics, mass murderers, occultists, spies, and the Illuminati share something hideous and grotesque in common. Almost all are homo-sexual. Worse, most of the sick-minded men who comprise these demented social groups are not only homosexual, they practice the most kinky and perverted forms of sexual licentiousness-pedophilia, satanic bondage, physical torture, bisexuality, transvestitism, and even bestiality.*

    *Source quoted: A complete nutcase called “Pastor Texe Marrs”!

  24. DC78 says:

    He really is a horrible toad..

    Anyways, his celebrations as the new arch bish have been short lived. Scotland has announced it will go forward with gay marriage!

  25. barriejohn says:

    They’re calling for his resignation already. Is that some kind of a record?

  26. RabbitOnAStick says:


    That’s a great link.

    i liked this bit.
    “The homosexual activist movement and organized pedophiles are linked together by a common goal: To gain access to children for seduction into homosexuality.”

    WHICH just cannot be true as that’s the job of the Catholic Priesthood and Christian Brothers Schools.

  27. AgentCormac says:


    Apparently Tartaglia has said “he had not meant to cause offence”.

    Yeah. Right. What a revolting excuse for a human being the shameless little lackey is.

  28. Stonyground says:

    I loved your rambly post, it provoked quite a lot of thought. Having opted for a joyless existence devoid of human affection, is it really any surprise that Catholic priests end up wanting to screw life up for everyone else? When I think about my family and how empty life would be without them, it makes sense.

    With regard to gay marriage in Scotland, it is a really good thing that the RCC carried out such a loud and high profile campaign and then lost. Their impotence is there for everyone to see, they shout and grandstand as much as they can and everyone ignores them.

  29. barriejohn says:

    Stonyground: I’ve had a flash of inspiration. Why don’t they invite the Pope to Scotland to rally the faithful and reinforce them in their bigotr beliefs? That should do the trick!

  30. JohnMWhite says:

    It’s not over yet in Scotland – the government is giving the go-ahead, but the vote won’t be carried out for a couple of years, and at best we’ll see gay marriages in early 2015. They are also opening up a second consultation period “specifically to address the concerns of those opposed”. It’s great the government had the guts to go “well, we’re doing it anyway” but I worry over such a length of time the incessant pressure from these bigots will cause a crack and it might falter.

    This is certainly progress, though. The Catholic Church in Scotland might even learn something from not being able to bully their way to controlling public policy… nah.

  31. Trevor Blake says:

    Nature, reason and religion concur that marriage is uniquely the union of a man and a woman, which, by its very nature, is designed for the mutual good of the spouses and to give the children who may be born of that union a father and a mother. For obvious reasons, a same-sex union cannot do that. A same sex union should not therefore be called marriage.

    Fair enough. I expect Bishop Tartaglia will soon issue a letter condemning marriage in which one or more partners are infertile, as they too cannot have children. Statements against adoption, in which a child is place with someone other than his or her biological parents, will likely be published soon as well. Bishop Tartaglia must be able to explain Matthew 19:12 and its relation to marriage and children – I look forward to reading it. Bishop Tartaglia can surely tell us all a great deal about marriage based on his own happy and long-term marriage to… well, I’m sure he knows a great deal about marriage anyway.

    He also has some views on epidemiology, having diagnosed that the fatal pancreatitis of MP David Cairns was caused by Cairns being a homosexual.

  32. barriejohn says:

    Trevor Blake: Quite right. There was a debate about contraception recently on BBC Television in which the Catholic nutter spokeswoman and the video-linked priest (who was giving her effulgent praise for taking such a principled and rational stand in the face of fierce opposition from the sane members of the panel) stated that the sole purpose of sex was procreation. No one took them up on that (to my great annoyance!). Do they really believe that millions of men, in the Third World especially, are EVER going to follow that teaching, and what hope is there for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and for the control of both population and poverty if the Catholic Church keeps spouting such nonsense?

  33. RabbitOnAStick says:

    You wrote this:
    Nature, reason and religion concur that marriage is uniquely the union of a man and a woman, ”

    A MAN

    As to religion: Please explain why the bible tells so many stories about the many hundreds if not thousands of wives that David had [whoever he was so called king] and all the so called founding leaders of the faith ?
    I can only conclude that this so called David was merely taking whomever he wanted whenever he wanted and these are lies that these were ‘wives’. This behaviour makes the story even more disgraceful. To hold this up as a ‘good man’ is totally devoid of humanity and respect. To believe this is the founder of all you believe shows what a total lack of respect mores and morals you all have.

  34. barriejohn says:

    @RabbitOnAStick: He was quoting from Tartaglia’s pastoral letter. Isn’t that obvious from his further comments?

  35. Ken Roberts says:

    Interesting how these religious fanatics all claim that the biblical definition of marriage is one man & one woman, when there are far more passages in the Bible concerning the multiple wives & concubines their foremost biblical heroes have, not to mention having children with their servants & slaves when the others fail to produce as many children as are wanted by the master. Here’s an interesting link showing their hypocrisy and deliberate editing of what the bible actually says about biblical marriage.

  36. barriejohn says:

    Someone linked to this the other day – on a different thread I hope!

  37. Trevor Blake says:

    RabbitOnAStick: keep firing! But try aiming for our mutual enemies. I quoted and the mocked the Bishop. Read any of my comments or articles at The Freethinker and you’ll see where my sights are pointed.

  38. RabbitOnAStick says:

    Trevor my sincere apologies. I didn’t realise. Blue on blue isn’t acceptable! I will adjust my sights.

  39. EditorCT says:

    What a pity your report on the archbishp-elect of Glasgow descends to nasty personal attack. Completely spoils the old “objectivity” thingy.

    By the way, the editor Catholic Truth is not a “he” – she’s a “she”. A slim, glamorous,fashion plate, highly intelligent, witty, SHE…

  40. barriejohn says:

    Shouldn’t she be at home washing the dishes then? That’s what the Bible teaches. Anyway, here’s an “objective” atatement for you:

    Catholic Truth – an oxymoron.